DORSET r. CAMPBELL.—1 BLAND. 339

And it is further decreed, that the said Campbell & Ritchie do,
*by a good and sufficient deed to be executed aad acknow-
ledged according to law, convey to the said complainant 363
Clement Dorsey, in fee simple, the two parcels of land called St.
Clair and Recompense, lying and being in Charles County, and sold
and conveyed by Henry Anderson to the said Campbell & Ritchie,
and subsequently sold to the said Clement Dorsey by the said Camp-
bell & Ritcliie. The said conveyance to be made on the payment or
bringing in of the sum of 8822.78 with interest from the 1st of
December, 1822, as aforesaid.

Upon this decree & fieri facias was issued on the 16th of Novem-
ber, 182(i, in favor of the defendants for the sum decreed to them
against the plaintiff, which was levied on the lands specified in
the decree; and the\ were sold and purchased by the solicitor of
the defendants for their use for the sum of $710. After which on
the 19th of January , 1828, the defendants filed their petition,
stating these circumstances, and thereupon prayed, that the pos-
session of the lands might be delivered to them.

BLAND, C., 21st January, 1828.—The petition of the defendants
having been submitted without argument, the proceedings were
read and considered.

It appears that the fieri facias, by virtue of which the land was
sold, was returnable to March Term, 1827; but was not actually
returned until the first day of September Term of that year; and
this application to have the possession delivered has not been
made until after the end of the term then next following, or De-
cember Term, which closed on the 15th of the present month.

The authority of this Court to cause the possession of land, sold
under this decree, to be delivered to the purchaser thereof, under
certain circumstances, cannot be controverted; and the mode of
proceeding in such cases has been well established. Dorc v. Dove,
Dick. 617; Same Case, I Bro. C. C. 375; Stribley v. Hawkie, 3 Atk.
275; The Commonwealth v. Raysdale, 2 Hen. & Mun. 8.(c) But this

(e) McKOMB v. KANKEY.—KILTY. C., 20th March, 1807.—The general power
of the Court of Chancery to issue an injunction, directing possession to be
delivered, is sanctioned bj the practice in England and by our Acts of As-
sembly. The decree for possession and injunction is a process demandable
of right as much as an attachment or other execution, and ought not to be
refused where the power is considered to exist. An application for posses-
sion in such cases is founded on the general powers of the Court, and on the
Act of 1785, ch. 73, s. 25, which provides that the Chancellor may cauee by
injunction the possession of the estate and effects demanded by the bill and
petition, and whereof the possession or a sale is decreed to be delivered to
the plaintiff or otherwise, according to the terms and import of such decree,
and as the nature of the case may require. Under which last part of the
clause the injunction may be modified to suit the particular case. In this